FEC chair: Commission not doing its job

Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, discusses the $1 million fine, the largest in its history, levied against two political action committees for campaign-reporting violations, during a news conference in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, Oct. 24, 2013. The FPPC also ordered two separate groups to pay the state's general fund the amount of money donated to them during the 2012 election cycle by the groups that were fined. The Small Business Action Committee was ordered to pay $11 million while the California Future Fund for Free Markets was ordered to pay $4 million. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) less

Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, discusses the $1 million fine, the largest in its history, levied against two political action committees for campaign-reporting ... more

Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press

FEC chair: Commission not doing its job

1 / 2

Back to Gallery

Ann Ravel is exactly what Americans should want as chair of the Federal Election Commission, the agency created after the Watergate scandal to track and regulate money in politics. She’s fearless, she’s relentless, and she’s dedicated to the concepts of transparency and fair play.

At the end of her year at the helm of the FEC, she’s also more than a little frustrated with a commission so terminally deadlocked, so debilitated by members who don’t believe in the laws they are assigned to enforce, that it has all but ceded its responsibilities as big money pours into the 2016 election. “Its worse than dysfunctional,” Ravel said of the FEC. “It’s hard to imagine how crazy it is, really.”

How crazy is it? Ravel was recently featured on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” segment about her commission. She could not disagree with any of its punch lines about the FEC’s ineffectiveness, even with its comparison of its current functionality to that of a man’s nipples.

The source of the dysfunction, the Democratic appointee explained, is the three Republican members of the six-member commission who are ideologically opposed to its basic mission.

“It often manifests itself in a partisan way, but it’s not partisan, it’s ideological,” Ravel said in a phone interview last week. “They don’t want any rules, they want total deregulation, and they don’t want the agency to operate.”

The resulting gridlock is having its intended effect. The FEC has all but walked away from major disputes about whether campaigns are flouting the rules.

Here’s why Americans should care: The absence of an effective regulatory watchdog over the 2016 election cycle will mean that federal campaigns at all levels, from congressional races to the presidency, will be influenced by big money that is impossible to trace.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling was much maligned by good-government advocates, and deservedly so, for giving corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals a free-speech right to make unlimited contributions on political causes as long as they were not directly aligned with a candidate’s official campaign. The majority reasoned that one of the main justifications for donation limits was to prevent corruption, and independent campaigns provided a buffer against corruption. The justices also argued that disclosure of the source of contributions was a checkpoint against wrongdoing.

Regrettably, the FEC has failed abysmally to assure that the sources of funding are disclosed and that these so-called independent campaigns are not openly coordinating with the candidates.

Ravel, a former Santa Clara County counsel, demonstrated her chops as a reformer-enforcer during her tenure as chair of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission. She administered the state’s biggest ever campaign fine, $1 million, after successfully pursuing a complex trail of money from conservative interests opposing a statewide tax measure (Proposition 30) and supporting a curb on union political donations (Prop. 32).

Regrettably, Ravel has found no similar zeal on the FEC to expose shady political operations.

One of its recent advisory opinions informed campaigns that candidates were free to solicit donations at “events” when representatives of an ostensibly independent “Super PAC” (groups set up to advocate for or against candidates”) was present. The only restriction was that the candidate could only solicit a contribution to the $2,700 federal limit on direct donations. However, a super PAC representative could ask for an unlimited donation in the candidate’s presence.

So much for “independence.”

And here’s the kicker: That “event” could consist of as few as 2 or 3 people.

“It could be a lunch,” Ravel noted. “It’s laughable. Any person who is looking at that, and thinking about what coordination means in the ordinary course of life, could not believe that the commission would come up with an interpretation such as this.”

It gets worse. More and more political benefactors are getting around even the minimal disclosure requirements on super PACs by registering as “social welfare” nonprofits under the tax code — even though their mission is blatantly political. This relieves them of any obligation to report their expenditures or sources of funding. The FEC has declined to put these “dark money” operations under the regulatory umbrella even in the most blatant cases.

Much to Ravel’s chagrin, campaign lawyers are spreading the word, openly, that the FEC is not going to enforce the meager laws that still exist. In essence, they are telling the campaigns, “It’s the Wild West. You might as well do what you want.”

How gridlocked is the Federal Election Commission? Consider these examples:

Dark money

The issue: Political committees formed for the express purpose of raising contributions not subject to the limits imposed on direct contributions to a candidate’s official campaign.

What the law says: These groups are not required to disclose the source of their donations as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit as long as their primary purpose is a “social welfare organization” and not a political operation.

What the FEC did: Nothing. With the commission deadlocked, groups formed for the primary purpose of raising and spending campaign funds have been running amok with little fear of regulatory crackdown.

Personal spending

The issue: A twice-defeated Florida congressional candidate, Republican Ed Lynch, has been accused of spending more than $53,500 on personal expenses that included, among other things, a gym membership, a home utility bill, a gun holster, an emergency room visit.

What the law says: Campaign contributions cannot be used for personal purposes.

What the FEC did: It went to court demanding he turn over just $1,622 in misspent funds — far less than the “over $5,000” Lynch admitted to spending for personal use — along with a $15,000 fine.

Anniversary party

The issue: In April, Chairwoman Ann Ravel proposed a 40th anniversary party for the commission.

What the law says: The FEC, created by an act of Congress, opened for business on April 14, 1975.

What the FEC did: Commissioners past and present bickered over where to hold the party, whether to publish a report about it, what to serve — and even whether the anniversary was legitimate, considering court rulings in 1976 and 1993 that narrowed the agency’s original authority.